The risk of civilian deaths from bombs dropped in Syria and Iraq could be much higher than drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, according to US officials. This is due to a lack of intelligence on the ground and a change in bombing policy.

The US military has admitted that it is reliant on satellite
images, drones and surveillance flights to try and get a better
picture of what is happening on the ground. It has very few
reliable sources on the ground which it can use to get up to date and
precise information. The data gained from the air is also used to
pinpoint possible targets where airstrikes can be carried out.

"I think it is likely that airstrikes will inevitably result
in some civilian casualties," said Jennifer Cafarella, who
is a top Syrian analyst with the Institute for the Study of War
in Washington, according to AP.

In Iraq, the US coalition does have some reports from the Iraqi
military; however they have little idea about what is happening
in areas controlled by Islamic State (IS). In Syria, there is no
cooperation with Bashar Assad’s government or moderate rebel forces, which the US is
backing against the Syrian president.

"We do take extreme caution and care in the conduct of these
missions," Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon's press
secretary, told reporters on Tuesday. "But there's risk in
any military operation. There's a special kind of risk when you
do air operations."

However, the information obtained by the US is not always
accurate. Locals have stated that US airstrikes have often hit
empty buildings which the IS has abandoned. The militant group’s
tactics since the bombardment started have been to blend in with
the local populations and move away from large-scale buildings
and camps, which would be easy targets for air campaigns.

"It's much harder for us to be able to know for sure what it
is we're hitting, what it is we're killing and what it is
collateral damage," said Tom Lynch, a retired colonel and
former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was reported
by AP.

Human rights groups have already stated that as many as two dozen
civilians have been killed so far by airstrikes from the US-led
coalition. At least 19 were killed in late September, when US
airstrikes hit grain silos in Syria, according to the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights, an organization which Cafarella
regards as reliable.

The coalition’s reliance on air power does not seem as though it
will stop any time soon, says Major General Jeff Harrigian, the
Air Force’s assistant deputy of chief of staff for operations,
plans and requirements. He maintains the current airstrikes are
part of a “persistent and sustained” campaign against
the militant group, even though he does admit IS are, “a smart
adversary.”

“Air power’s targeted actions are disrupting ISIL’s command
and control, their logistics and infrastructure, and their
freedom of movement,” Harrigian was quoted as saying on the
US Department of Defense’s website. “We see air power as one
of the fundamental components of the comprehensive
strategy.”

Change in policy

The US-led coalition’s campaign in Syria and Iraq has seen a
shift away from targeting rules which were imposed for drone
strikes in Pakistan in Yemen.

In May 2013, at a speech at the National Defense University in
Washington, President Barack Obama acknowledged that his
administration was responsible for killing no fewer than four US
citizens with these attacks, and potentially thousands of
civilians, through the use of drones. This led to a drastic
re-think governing how future drone attacks would be carried out.

The new rules stated that no drone strike would occur without a
"near certainty" that civilians would not be harmed.

Before the legislation was introduced, according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism website, 339 drone strikes have taken
place in Pakistan since Obama came to power, which led to
almost 4,000 deaths, of which around one-quarter have been
civilians.

However the group said they have found no evidence of civilian
casualties in the country since the new policy was adopted. The
Long War Journal also reported that there have been only nine
strikes this year, in comparison to 110 in 2010.

However, according to White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden,
this rule is intended to be applied “only when we take direct
action outside of active hostilities.”

The picture has changed significantly in Syria and Iraq, with
Hayden saying this is an armed conflict. She mentioned that
targeting is undertaken under the rules of law, which although it
does require military’s to take cautions to avoid civilian
casualties, it does not hold them to the ‘near certainty’
standard that was imposed by Obama.